‘Child’ is a synonym for ‘kid’, two words commonly used to refer to individuals who have not yet attained the legal status or social profile of an adult.
Thanks for acknowledging that a person’s visible injuries don’t necessarily tell us much about the circumstances in which they were sustained.
And if he thought Martin was 19, an adult, you think he would have said adult? Or does “kid” involve all children and teens?
He would have said “man” if he felt Martin fit the profile of an adult. There is a reason we refer to an older teen as ‘kid’ or ‘child’. The awareness of Martin’s age profile indicated by his use of the word ‘kid’, should have given him more cause for caution (given that he was armed) but instead, it seems to have emboldened him in the determination not to let this goon (?) “get away”.
I use “kid” to describe anyone who is obviously younger than me. I am pretty sure that Zimmerman wasn’t going for the legalistic use of the term.
Exactly. I am far from being a minor and I get called kid all the time by people my senior.
How people describe you is all relative to their perspective.I don’t think a date has been set yet, but according to the defense it will be several months. My guess is it will be a minimum of 5-6 months away. They have to have time for all of the pretrial stuff.
He was not chasing anyone.
Not what I said at all.
And you know what Zimmerman was thinking and what his decisions would be?
He admits to following a running kid. Basic vocabulary is an issue now?
There is legal adult, which one can’t always tell by looking at someone, and social adult, which is the impression you get when you look at someone. Obviously, whatever his impression of Martin, Zimmerman did not perceive him socially speaking, as an adult - or he would not have referred to him as “kid”. Why do simple, everyday expressions become such an issue anyway. We all know that ‘kid’ includes teens, even those in college. We also know that ‘kid’ does not include someone who is obviously an adult by outward appearances.
And in Zimmerman’s case we have that evidence? Tell me, which eye witness can point to who the aggressor was in instigating the fight? Which pieces of evidence? Which forensic pointers? Just please, don’t tell me all you’re depending on is the word of a man whose whole future hangs on what his story is…
In a court of law, the truth isn’t relevant. It is all about what you can prove. The burden of proof resides with the prosecution. Zimmerman doesn’t have to prove his innocence, the prosecution has to prove his guilt. In a “Stand Your Ground” hearing, the prosecution has to prove that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Zimmerman only has to prove that he was in reasonable fear of his life and that he had no ability to retreat from that threat. To nullify the defense, the prosecution will have to prove that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation or provoked Martin into attacking him. There simply isn’t any evidence that suggests that. In fact, the defense can simply point out that Zimmerman’s intent was not provocative because he is the one who dialed 911 before the confrontation happened. No matter how you slice and dice the data, it will be very hard for the prosecution to prove that Zimmmerman initiated the confrontation or provoked it in a manner that nullifies his right to defend himself against Treyvon Martin’s aggressive assault against him.
Exactly. Regardless of what Zimmerman did or didn’t do, the decision will come down to proving something for which there is no evidence. I don’t see how the prosecution can prevail on this one.
Thanks for my morning laugh. The only evidence of motive to act as an aggressor that I see, is against Zimmerman. He clearly had the intent to make sure ‘this one’ did not get away. As for calling 911? Ever heard of the Texas guy who told the 911 operator of his intention before picking up his gun, walking outside and shooting two burglars of his neighbors house? So much for 911 calls being an indication of desire to avoid confrontation…
Because we do not know what Zimmerman thought.
That guy was acquitted, coincidently, on Stand Your Ground (Castle Doctrine) laws. Thanks for proving my point.